Guide
Disclosure gap tracking: how prosecutors stop surprise discovery items
Updated 2026-09-10 · 3 min read
Disclosure gap tracking is a live list of disclosable items that still have no decision, items that changed after they were produced, and withholds that have no recorded basis. The point is not a badge that says the office is compliant. The point is that a prosecutor can walk into a status conference knowing what is still open, in language they can explain to a judge without a model behind it.
Why surprises happen
Material does not only arrive through the intake pile the paralegal already coded. A partner upload on Friday, a Joint Ops close-out that attached two exhibits, a revised witness statement — each of those can be disclosable and none of them will appear in last month's production letter unless something is watching the same database the rest of the matter uses. Email folders and shared drives fail here because they do not share an identity with the discovery list. When the item is not on the list, nobody owns the decision. Gap tracking only works if every inbound channel writes to the same record the radar reads.
What to put on the list
Three buckets are enough to start: no decision yet; produced, then the source file changed; withheld, with no basis on the row. Each row needs a source (evidence, partner upload, action request, revision), a Rule 16 or local-rule date if the office tracks one, and an owner. Do not encode a finding of Brady or Giglio into the software. That finding is counsel's. The software's job is to refuse to hide the item. If a vendor promises the list will 'certify compliance,' treat that as a reason not to buy it. A list that can be read in a motion hearing is more valuable than a green check.
How a radar should behave
It should be deterministic. Same record, same list, no model call. A prosecutor should be able to say, in court, which rule produced the row. It should update when partners contribute, not on a nightly batch that is already stale by the hearing. It should not auto-close items because an AI thought they looked produced. Closing is a person. Prosequi's Disclosure Gap Radar is built that way: it reports open gaps on the matter, counts them for the people who can see discovery, and does not stamp the file compliant. See the product tour for the three-step path, and the productions guide for what happens after you decide.
What it never replaces
It does not replace a Brady/Giglio policy, a supervisor review, or the attorney's signature on a production. It does not transmit to CM/ECF. It does not decide that an item is exculpatory. Offices that want a written walkthrough of the radar on synthetic data should use the contact form; there is no public demo login. Related: productions with Bates numbering, the Monday docket brief (which surfaces the same open gaps), and multi-agency software so partner uploads actually land on the list.
A week in practice
Monday: the docket brief shows two matters with open gaps before status conferences. Tuesday: a partner closes an interview request and two exhibits appear on the radar with no decision. Wednesday: you mark one disclose and one withhold-with-basis; the withhold stays visible so a supervisor can see it. Thursday: a revised statement invalidates a produced item and it returns to the list as produced-then-changed. Friday: you build a production from the delta. None of that requires a model. All of it requires the same matter record. If your current tools cannot tell that story without a war room, the gap is in the system, not in the staff.
Buying questions
Ask a vendor to show, on synthetic data, an item that entered through a partner upload and appeared on the gap list without a human copying it. Ask them to explain the rule that created the row, in court language. Ask whether the product will ever print 'compliant.' If the answer to the last question is yes, keep walking. Prosequi's answer is no. The Trust Center states the same thing about certifications generally: we describe controls that ship. We do not stamp the office.